The new direction of Monsanto?

[Isgrimnur]

Wired

[T]he company is introducing novel strains of familiar food crops, invented at Monsanto and endowed by their creators with powers and abilities far beyond what you usually see in the produce section. The lettuce is sweeter and crunchier than romaine and has the stay-fresh quality of iceberg. The peppers come in miniature, single-serving sizes to reduce leftovers. The broccoli has three times the usual amount of glucoraphanin, a compound that helps boost antioxidant levels. Stark’s department, the global trade division, came up with all of them.
...
But here’s the twist: The lettuce, peppers, and broccoli—plus a melon and an onion, with a watermelon soon to follow—aren’t genetically modified at all. Monsanto created all these veggies using good old-fashioned crossbreeding, the same tech­nology that farmers have been using to optimize crops for millennia. That doesn’t mean they are low tech, exactly. Stark’s division is drawing on Monsanto’s accumulated scientific know-how to create vegetables that have all the advantages of genetically modified organisms without any of the Frankenfoods ick factor.
...
They may be born in a lab, but technically they’re every bit as natural as what you’d get at a farmers’ market. Keep them away from pesticides and transport them less than 100 miles and you could call them organic and locavore too.
...
[G]enetically modifying consumer crops proved to be inefficient and expensive. Stark estimates that adding a new gene takes roughly 10 years and $100 million to go from a product concept to regulatory approval. And inserting genes one at a time doesn’t necessarily produce the kinds of traits that rely on the inter­actions of several genes. Well before their veggie business went kaput, Monsanto knew it couldn’t just genetically modify its way to better produce; it had to breed great vegetables to begin with. As Stark phrases a company mantra: “The best gene in the world doesn’t fix dogshit germplasm.”

What does? Crossbreeding. Stark had an advantage here: In the process of learning how to engineer chemical and pest resistance into corn, researchers at Monsanto had learned to read and understand plant genomes—to tell the difference between the dogshit germplasm and the gold. And they had some nifty technology that allowed them to predict whether a given cross would yield the traits they wanted.

The key was a technique called genetic marking. It maps the parts of a genome that might be associated with a given trait, even if that trait arises from multiple genes working in concert. Researchers identify and cross plants with traits they like and then run millions of samples from the hybrid—just bits of leaf, really—through a machine that can read more than 200,000 samples per week and map all the genes in a particular region of the plant’s chromosomes.
...
Monsanto computer models can actually predict inheritance patterns, meaning they can tell which desired traits will successfully be passed on. It’s breeding without breeding, plant sex in silico. In the real world, the odds of stacking 20 different characteristics into a single plant are one in 2 trillion. In nature, it can take a millennium. Monsanto can do it in just a few years.

And this all happens without any genetic engineering. Nobody inserts a single gene into a single genome. (They could, and in fact sometimes do, look at their crosses by engineering a plant as a kind of beta test. But those aren’t intended to leave the lab.) Stark and his colleagues realized that they could use these technologies to identify a cross that would have highly desirable traits and grow the way they wanted. And they could actually charge more for it—all the benefits of a GMO with none of the stigma. “We didn’t have those tools the first time around in vegetables,” Stark says.

I wonder how this will affect their patent efforts.

[Odin]

Fascinating that it's run by a guy named Stark. My spider-senses are tingling.

[LordMortis]

Works for me... I think... I have no problems with cross breeding based on super duper computer algorithms of understanding.

[KKBlue]

I finished watching GMO OMG and have to say I still believe much of the cancers and Alzheimer's is a direct link to the foods we eat.

[FishPants]

I finished watching GMO OMG and have to say I still believe much of the cancers and Alzheimer's is a direct link to the foods we eat.

Or the pollution coming out from every car, truck, airplane into the air.. Or the chemicals we surround ourselves with every day in our homes, from cleaners to what the house is made with.. Or the high voltage lines running through some areas.. Or wind turbines... There's a million reasons, and I have no doubt that frankenfoods are in there as well. The rub though is that mortality rates are way higher, so if we stay alive longer we're also going to see different diseases appear to take us down (Diabetes and obesity related diseases excepted of course).

I saw Monsanto had made the change a year or two ago in a documentary, and some bigwig was interviewed (could have been the CEO) who said they could see the writing on the wall -- they were going to be sued out of existence at some point, and people wanted non-GMO foods so they shifted gears. Their business practices are still evil though independent of GMO or non-GMO.

[Odin]

Any idea when I'll be able to start buying these wonderfoods?

[Kraken]

Any idea when I'll be able to start buying these wonderfoods?

I'm told that there are apples that taste like grapes.

[Kelric]

I have no problems with cross breeding based on super duper computer algorithms of understanding.

This. I'm less thrilled about supporting Monsanto, however.

[DocDarm]

I finished watching GMO OMG and have to say I still believe much of the cancers and Alzheimer's is a direct link to the foods we eat.

We're all going to die of something. Since we're not dying of pneumonia or infections in our 20-40's, we started dying of heart disease in our 50's-70's. Now that we're managing cholesterol and other risk factors better, less of us are dying of heart disease and instead we're dying of cancer and neurological diseases in our 70's - 90's. Take it in perspective. We're living longer and better than ever.

Me, I'm much more concerned about the plastics (especially the chemicals leached from plastic water bottles and the like...google "endocrine disrupters") contaminating our food and waters than genetic manipulation...a protein is a protein!

DocDarm

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, I'm also beginning to think things like phthalates and BPA are probably more harmful than we realized. And that doesn't even get into the brominated flame retardants we've likely been over exposed to for the last 30+ years in our homes. We already have ties to cancer for high fat, high red-meat diets...I'm not worried about GMO foods...yet.

[KKBlue]

My favorite is when family members come up to me and talk about the "latest" in the news. Me, well chances are I knew about it years ago but keep it to myself. I have always been the activist in the family, resident tree hugger, recycler, and other earth friendly and health savvy stereo types. I don't preach but will throw out a tidbit now and then. My in-laws eat healthier now and my mom has begged me to stop telling her things because she does not want to know. I buy my brothers kids what I would purchase for our children (also wash their clothes before I give them as gifts). Every change makes a difference.

I try not to be extreme but typically buy in glass vs plastic and make my livelihood purchases wisely. The "latest" for me was to play the GMO OMG documentary. I don't watch the beware topics because I freak out way too much. Only wanted to make sure the rest of you knew the name Monsanto because it was new to me. Cried a few times while watching because the show did it's job to turn-up sorrow and pleading why would someone do this. I did a quick search and didn't see a GMO topic and wanted to bump this one. Isgrimur's original post was more updated with the company than the GMO OMG documentary. Still happy to read what you all are writing about other things to beware about.

Sorry rambling.

[Jeff V]

I wonder how many of you will continue to bad-mouth Monsanto after they successfully engineer an overproduced crop (corn) to produce highly desired bacon instead.

[RunningMn9]

That will depend on whether or not Monsanto will continue to be corporate fuckheads.

[Kraken]

Monsanto's been a bogeyman for quite some time. I don't remember which movie opened my eyes to their practices -- Food Inc, maybe? There have been several.

That said, the only way 7 billion earthlings are going to have food is through GMOs and other agricultural wizardry yet to be discovered. We are fortunate to live in a bountiful country where we have the option to be choosy. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's any physiological reason to shun GMOs (although there are legitimate ecological concerns about releasing engineered genomes into the wild), but I know the jury is still out.

For all their slimy business practices, Monsanto and friends are a necessary evil unless you're cool with population control through starvation.

[Alefroth]

I wonder how many of you will continue to bad-mouth Monsanto after they successfully engineer an overproduced crop (corn) to produce highly desired bacon instead.

Don't they already?

[Alefroth]

Monsanto's been a bogeyman for quite some time. I don't remember which movie opened my eyes to their practices -- Food Inc, maybe? There have been several.

That said, the only way 7 billion earthlings are going to have food is through GMOs and other agricultural wizardry yet to be discovered. We are fortunate to live in a bountiful country where we have the option to be choosy. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's any physiological reason to shun GMOs (although there are legitimate ecological concerns about releasing engineered genomes into the wild), but I know the jury is still out.

For all their slimy business practices, Monsanto and friends are a necessary evil unless you're cool with population control through starvation.

We can feed way more than 7 billion people without GMO's. It just takes smart growing and harvesting practices, and actually getting the food to the people.

[miltonite]

Monsanto's been a bogeyman for quite some time. I don't remember which movie opened my eyes to their practices -- Food Inc, maybe? There have been several.

That said, the only way 7 billion earthlings are going to have food is through GMOs and other agricultural wizardry yet to be discovered. We are fortunate to live in a bountiful country where we have the option to be choosy. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's any physiological reason to shun GMOs (although there are legitimate ecological concerns about releasing engineered genomes into the wild), but I know the jury is still out.

For all their slimy business practices, Monsanto and friends are a necessary evil unless you're cool with population control through starvation.

We can feed way more than 7 billion people without GMO's. It just takes smart growing and harvesting practices, and actually getting the food to the people.

In one of my classes the professor told us that if all available land was converted to farm land, and with out current crops and technology the carrying capacity of the earth is 9 billion humans. We are closing in on that quite quickly but then again crops are producing more and more thanks to GMO's and selective breeding.

[RunningMn9]

The problem with that thought is that this is only true if you don't consider the reality that our current agricultural practices aren't sustainable. The curious question is how many humans can we support with sustainable practices?

I don't know what that answer is, but that's the one that matters.

[MonkeyFinger]

There's always crickets and grasshoppers and the like as a sustainable food source.

My first memory of Monsanto was riding the Adventure Thru Inner Space ride at Disneyland as a wee lad, pretty cool stuff back then.

[mori]

Most of us just have to become vegetarians.

[Kelric]

Most of us just have to become vegetarians.

And convert as much space to green space as we can: flat rooftops should be solar panels, food producing, or just filled with regular old native plants that promote birds and bees and other insects. Lawns can be replaced with gardens or wild flowers or anything but grass, etc. There is a lot of work we could do.

But damn you if you take away my bacon!

[mori]

Most of us just have to become vegetarians.

And convert as much space to green space as we can: flat rooftops should be solar panels, food producing, or just filled with regular old native plants that promote birds and bees and other insects. Lawns can be replaced with gardens or wild flowers or anything but grass, etc. There is a lot of work we could do.

But damn you if you take away my bacon!

Why do you think ISIS is so pissed off? They deny themselves bacon!. The world would collapse into a clusterfuck of fiefdoms without beautiful cured and smoked pork belly.

[RunningMn9]

Most of us just have to become vegetarians.

Won't that just hasten the environmental destruction that our current agricultural model wreaks? (massive amounts of fresh water for irrigation, massive energy in the form of fertilizers and pesticides and stuff, and the impact of pouring massive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides into the ground and local water supplies, and so on)

[Alefroth]

Most of us just have to become vegetarians.

Won't that just hasten the environmental destruction that our current agricultural model wreaks? (massive amounts of fresh water for irrigation, massive energy in the form of fertilizers and pesticides and stuff, and the impact of pouring massive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides into the ground and local water supplies, and so on)

All of that would lesson if we stopped feeding that food to animals and ate it ourselves.

[RunningMn9]

How would it lessen? If we don't do it, the land isn't productive enough to feed everyone.

[Kraken]

Somebody recently wrote something that crossed my facebook feed (how's that for authority?) arguing that cattle graze marginal grasslands much more efficiently than they could ever be farmed. The case study was specific to Australia, but it made a valid point: in some parts of the world, meat production is the better use of land.

[Victoria Raverna]

Somebody recently wrote something that crossed my facebook feed (how's that for authority?) arguing that cattle graze marginal grasslands much more efficiently than they could ever be farmed. The case study was specific to Australia, but it made a valid point: in some parts of the world, meat production is the better use of land.

What if we figure out how to cook the grass and feed them to human directly? isn't that going to be more efficient than feed them to cattles then we eat meat from the cattles.

[Blackhawk]

What if we figure out how to cook the grass and feed them to human directly? isn't that going to be more efficient than feed them to cattles then we eat meat from the cattles.

That's it! Instead of engineering the crops, engineer the humans.

[RunningMn9]

We aren't ruminants.

I feel like these conversations always have very superficial answers like "just feed all that corn to humans instead of cows!!" and I don't know how thoroughly they are thought out.

I also don't think the average Joe is aware of how energy and water intensive modern agriculture is. I assume that the future is going to have to be some sort of vertical farms.

[Kelric]

Just build grocery stores in Africa so they don't starve anymore!

Sometimes I miss U2K.

[Alefroth]

How would it lessen? If we don't do it, the land isn't productive enough to feed everyone.

It takes many times more resources to produce food by giving it to a cow first. If it didn't lessen, we'd at least have more food for humans for the same resources expended.

[Alefroth]

Somebody recently wrote something that crossed my facebook feed (how's that for authority?) arguing that cattle graze marginal grasslands much more efficiently than they could ever be farmed. The case study was specific to Australia, but it made a valid point: in some parts of the world, meat production is the better use of land.

That's true, but it isn't the standard way of producing beef. There must be a reason CAFO's are used so heavily.

[Kraken]

Somebody recently wrote something that crossed my facebook feed (how's that for authority?) arguing that cattle graze marginal grasslands much more efficiently than they could ever be farmed. The case study was specific to Australia, but it made a valid point: in some parts of the world, meat production is the better use of land.

That's true, but it isn't the standard way of producing beef. There must be a reason CAFO's are used so heavily.

Yup, not contesting that. From an efficiency/sustainability standpoint it would behoove us to eat less meat since most of it comes from factory farm operations. However, suggesting that we should all go vegetarian is actually counterproductive because animals that feed on marginal lands without requiring irrigation or fertilizer actually increase the available food supply. From both a health perspective and an ecological perspective, meat ought to be an occasional part of our diet, not its foundation.

[RunningMn9]

It takes many times more resources to produce food by giving it to a cow first. If it didn't lessen, we'd at least have more food for humans for the same resources expended.

How many kilocalories of corn does it take make how many kilocalories of cow?

Also, I believe that the corn we feed to cows isn't fit for human consumption anyway - we aren't feeding them sweet corn IIRC.

And if we take the land that is being used to grow shitty cow corn, how much can that land produce sustainably? Assuming we aren't dumb enough to become cornatarians.

[AWS260]

This seems like the most appropriate thread for this Slate piece on GMOs. A good read (though lengthy).

the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.

[Isgrimnur]

They're just asking questions.

[ImLawBoy]

This seems like the most appropriate thread for this Slate piece on GMOs. A good read (though lengthy).

the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.

I'm not a scientician, so I largely go by my layman's interpretation of what I read. I still haven't read anything that convinces me that the supposed dangers of GMOs are anything more than a bogeyman. In fact (and this might rile up a few people), I tend to think that the case against GMOs is quite similar to the case against vaccinations. Not a lot of science to back it up, but plenty of scare tactics.

[stessier]

Thanks for the link - I've always wanted to have a good source to point the fear mongerers toward. This has a ton of links to the arguments of both sides and makes it very hard to say "yeah, but."

[Jeff V]

This seems like the most appropriate thread for this Slate piece on GMOs. A good read (though lengthy).

the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.

I'm not a scientician, so I largely go by my layman's interpretation of what I read. I still haven't read anything that convinces me that the supposed dangers of GMOs are anything more than a bogeyman. In fact (and this might rile up a few people), I tend to think that the case against GMOs is quite similar to the case against vaccinations. Not a lot of science to back it up, but plenty of scare tactics.

I refuse to buy any product that panders to the ignorant by proclaiming "Non GMO" on their label.

[LawBeefaroni]

Navel oranges are 200-year-old mutant Brazilian clones. But they're not GMO.